Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community
Sign in to follow this  
optimusprimal82

'Fixed' player instructions for roles - impact on ME/player behaviour

Recommended Posts

Is it possible wingers are staying so narrow because AI is using narrow defensive width? Agree with you about dribbling and crossing, decision making is just terrible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some more examples; I realise the 3d/2d images are only visualisations of the underlying code so realise it may only be approximations - apologies if that's the case and my reading of it is so wrong. Below example is taken from team on 'cautious' mentality.

AML is set as follows (attacking role on cautious mentality gives him 'positive' mentality overall);

image.thumb.png.e4758c6547b8b6a105312d48a535c047.png

AMR is set as follows (same as AML, 'positive' mentality overall);

image.thumb.png.52760f45cfe8e7e30b18fe70ddc2f7c7.png

Blackburn have now changed to a 451;

image.thumb.png.7bddf480bfba39170bcafba8250c0d8c.png

 

As the opposition attack, our actual shape doesn't look too bad in terms of our attackers (red = AML/AMR);

image.thumb.png.8a9b95a036a3f784f9dc04e5bb670b9e.png

image.thumb.png.8e2443dbf78341edf836f829e74e607f.png

 

Again, as we win back possession and move up the pitch our positioning is ok - although I'd expect the AMR to be a touch further forward;

image.thumb.png.6015869f3e4941f07d0d01b7bab44dfe.png

image.thumb.png.0b1614a1aa289fd7023115cf9b291760.png

 

As soon as the ball enters the final third, the defence immediately narrows and the two wide players - rather than staying wide in space as an option - narrow with them;

image.thumb.png.1cf31524ac92f73accd513851f0a6cef.png

image.thumb.png.ef84eb99e3dddeaaca41866890b6f55e.png

Looking at the above picture - Blackburn are playing a back 5 yet aren't even as spread as the penalty box? Ok, so they're defending (very) narrow (and again, I appreciate the 3d/2d is just an approximation of what's happening), but why do the attackers insist on following them!? There are acres of space and it's very rare I can get them to go there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Mitja said:

Is it possible wingers are staying so narrow because AI is using narrow defensive width? Agree with you about dribbling and crossing, decision making is just terrible. 

That's what i'm thinking - it's almost like my wide players are marking their full backs than the other way around... It's as soon as play enters our attacking third, we just immediately narrow. When the ball is in our own half they position themselves perfectly.

 

Happens with both support and attack roles, at high team mentality and lower, using a multitude of systems and setups. I can get wingers to go into that space by dribbling/running with the ball, but when the opposition has 5 defenders plus a couple of DMs I don't want to play the Moyes way and hit cross after cross hoping for a ball to bounce in etc.

It also wouldn't be so bad if the FB's picked up the slack, but if anyone watches a game on full, it's scary how often a highly skilled MC will pass it out of play when attempting to find a full back.

Hate finding faults/feeling like I'm nitpicking, but a lot of the times when you see your team 'doing stupids' you can reconcile it back to settings/conflicting instructions in your setup (passing too short/team setup too wide/no options etc), here i'm at a bit of a loss - the rest of the stuff i set largely responds; we keep the ball well around the rest of the side, just we grind to a halt in the final third as our options disintegrate as all 5 of my forward players play within the width of the penalty box - it's like every game is being played at Highbury! :D 

Edited by optimusprimal82

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, optimusprimal82 said:

image.thumb.png.ef84eb99e3dddeaaca41866890b6f55e.png

Looking at the above picture - Blackburn are playing a back 5 yet aren't even as spread as the penalty box.

Looks too narrow imho, practically they're holding their hands. And if the attacking width of wingers is linked to defensive width...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mitja said:

Looks too narrow imho, practically they're holding their hands. And if the attacking width of wingers is linked to defensive width...

Yup. Same again here too - all five defenders super tight, AML/AMR again just tucked in sitting on the FB's shoulder. My number 17 (Gomes) has the ball, if 12 was a bit wider the ball could be played to 7 then behind the FB, or the STC could run in behind #5 - just any sort of run or movement to pull that 5 man brick wall apart a little? Also for the FB sat there waiting who could be used but nothing. It's like the wide players might be waiting for the overlap that isn't turned on in some ways? They're sat waiting for a give and go?

image.thumb.png.01e270e280706352372829630d25f7bf.png

 

Again, not saying this can't be gotten around, but it definitely feels 'off' - and if you can circumvent, the 'how' is a little mystifying and feels strangely difficult/restricted by settings.

Edited by optimusprimal82

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the one time we actually use all that space - completely bypassing the AML - we score, albeit from a cross, something my guys are encouraged not to do;

image.thumb.png.64c675b9de536f98b67092e64af40e3d.png

image.thumb.png.a66c5a6cb7d9f01d0579fb489c2893f3.png

image.thumb.png.a9a88e2ce844df9ecd01fe0b5e42c4c4.png

Edited by optimusprimal82

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly, changed both to ML/MR wide midfielders (i picked WM's again because the ML/MR wingers have PI's i just don't want) with 'stay wide' enabled and look already at the difference;

image.thumb.png.04b649ccca04653657da993fe3cdee5d.png

#4 is their left back and just by the WM having the ball out wide he's been dragged across leaving just 4 in the backline. Rather than just hopelessly cross, he even played it back to the RB who in turn moved it infield, keeping the ball etc - still my ML sits where i want him;

image.thumb.png.8fd05bf046b46a157c7e1264e4b372e2.png

Now this is more like it - in the final third, we've got them spread all across the pitch and we're looking good for an overload. Yes the middle looks horrid, but this is only a testing session, can sort them out afterwards;

image.thumb.png.e464957fff76dcb0afbd27652b2cfebe.png

 

Morale of this story short term for me is to use ML/MR's; long term I think the AML/AMR's behaviour definitely needs to be looked at, and I would love to be able to change the PI's on roles, or at least create my own custom role (or give us an 'outside forward' :D )?!

Don't think you'll need this really to see the issue guys - you can recreate it very quickly, but pkm in case it's useful etc;

Blackburn v FC United.pkm

Edited by optimusprimal82

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, optimusprimal82 said:

image.thumb.png.e464957fff76dcb0afbd27652b2cfebe.png

 

Morale of this story short term for me is to use ML/MR's; long term I think the AML/AMR's behaviour definitely needs to be looked at, and I would love to be able to change the PI's on roles, or at least create my own custom role?

The MR should have tucked in there like AMR, there's no need for him to stretch play when the ball is on other side. Looks too robotic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Mitja said:

The MR should have tucked in there like AMR, there's no need for him to stretch play when the ball is on other side. Looks too robotic.

Very true, but if i have to choose between a player that doesn't listen at all or one who listens explicitly I'll take the latter right now, we can sort out the cherry on top of the cake later! :D

I'll do more testing with the MR/ML later, that was really quick with just 'stay wide' turned on etc, can maybe get them to play better/more realistically with some tweaking/proper setup.

Goes some way maybe to explaining why the majority of the 'super download tactics' this year don't use AML/AMR's and 442's seem so popular again. All of my own tactics I use properly all use ML/MR's now i think of it, must have 'spotted but not spotted' this... :onmehead:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, MR/ML is incredible to keep the width. It was something we discussed a lot during FM 18 Wien we tried to recreate Man City´s general characteristic of using two really wide players. Fullbacks are also really good at not hugging the opposition fullback in the final third. :)

It is a bit annoying that a role like a Winger isnt really wide when the play gets closer to goal, but I think it is because of the AMRL strata. I think that strata should be seen as the wide forward strata - something we had in previous versions. So whenever I want a wide attacker to stay wide I put them in the midfield strata. There are some downsides to the pressing as the oppositions wide defenders usually have a bit more time om the ball before the WM begins pressure him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as an additional update on this - won't add much more I promise, don't want to beat a dead horse etc! - I did a little bit more testing with the MR/ML's and found I could involve them better in the build up by varying mentalities (sometimes to extreme), however, only as WM's & once again PI's cause us headaches and prevent them from being as effective as they should, and decision making with regard to when to pass wide, or of the wide players themselves is incredibly questionable with MC's frequently hitting easy passes out of play or picking to spread wide and ignoring what look to be simpler/easier/better passing alternatives (see below);

Higher team mentality/lower (defend) player duty

If team is set to Positive or Attacking and WM is set to Defend then player overall mentality is Cautious. This gives the wide guys a good starting position when play is in the middle third of the pitch, however an issue arises as play develops;

image.thumb.png.39cafc35b2037a83bc3a3a9d367de9d7.png

They're already a bit deeper than I'd like in the above pic, but as scrub on a little we see the MR hasn't hardly moved at all. He's still sitting incredibly wide because for testing i've been keeping the 'stay wider' PI on, but an unfortunate side-effect of the Defend duty for the WM is when you change him down he inherits a 'Hold Position' PI which stops him progressing and contributing during the attacking phase. This makes sense really given the nature of the duty, but it stops us being able to solve the problem this way. Also interesting to note that even with overlap right turned on and the FB with an overall attacking mentality and 'Get Further Forward' set that he too holds position behind the MR;

image.thumb.png.9ff5a2df5c59e410139496fb01b47711.png

image.thumb.png.3cf7e52d04e16129b3a0b766dfc574f7.png

image.thumb.png.19fe8d8044cf28db77e9d6d14e6a9b31.png

 

Higher team mentality/medium (support) player duty

If team is set to Positive, WM on support duty overall mentality is Balanced, if team is Attacking, WM on support duty overall mentality is Positive.

Now if we're talking positioning and shape then this is much better overall, although I'd consider the back 5 defenders to still be incredibly narrow and naively inattentive of the wide players - i'm not expecting a comedy sketch where they all spread out and we can play through balls for fun - of course  i don't expect that - but you surely at least defend your own penalty box? 

Putting that aside for a second, we almost get some great and proper wing play with this setup - our MC plays a great ball for our well positioned ML - luckily he has pace to burn so he easily gets past the defender. He's under instruction to cross less often but given his position I believe he's pretty justified in crossing here - just sadly predictable that as he delays another defender comes across and the cross is blocked; 

image.thumb.png.7d949387a909af62547eb362d97a492c.png

image.thumb.png.60836cf5f6f93b3eebb78b4d779720a2.png

image.thumb.png.857c2f66fd56a947d112b621047eacc5.png

 

Later in the game we see this developing - the idea of stretching the backline is actually working and a gap has appeared between the DC and the FB which the STC seems to be looking to exploit - lovely stuff!

image.thumb.png.f99a7208f9d654d615bc09d06428c8de.png

 

The ball is played into the AMC who turns; the STC has a run on if he can find him, failing that he can play it into space for the ML...

image.thumb.png.936d0ce915b12c715349702b2c64ecbb.png

 

Unfortunately we fail to take advantage as the ball is blasted (passing 16, decisions 15, vision 18) towards the winger and out of play.

image.thumb.png.4021c856ee3ce94157c59985d799fa12.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another example of the strange logic when it comes to crossing;

 

image.thumb.png.778064e45fd3651d89ac17337cdc28a4.png

MC has the ball in the centre, positions are looking ok - MR is a bit wide considering but ok, I can live with it/better than too narrow

 

image.thumb.png.d137a352396ba9a09d0aefa00770fbd7.png

As MC plays it into STC's feet, team react well, MR starts to make run towards the centre

 

image.thumb.png.270f060af0bb80b23ce81ee510fdcd8e.png

STC lays it back to MC and moves back towards the box

 

image.thumb.png.a90c021ec5fa8b7a25bd33216b63a957.png

MC pings a glorious little ball over to our ML who has a fleet of willing runners to look at. He's told to cross less, and if he does cross to keep it low (because we're not blessed aerially) so we can forgive him if he doesn't look at the MR running in at the back post, the ball into the AMC heading towards the penalty spot too looks pretty ambitious. He could run down the line and cross it (but he's told I prefer he doesn't RWB or cross), or he could play it behind the FB for the onrushing MC... Instead, he opts to keep possession and play it back to the FB - a move that surprised me - which is (sadly) more than I can say for what happened next.

image.thumb.png.590a69853f5de912737908fa11629c7b.png

Upon receiving the ball, the FB - having watched events unfold, having seen our attackers now huddled in the box, static at the end of their runs, having been told to cross less often but if he does then keep it low and aim for the near post - decides to (in the FM commentators words) "hang one up to the far post", only to smack it straight into the onrushing defender and out of play. Initiative lost.

image.thumb.png.4a4afccb331ec67291c89437bf24f730.png

image.thumb.png.fc5e743dade114b9e7fe84eacb68cf7d.png

Positive hat on - all that being said, obviously the logic here looks a bit dodgy, but at least the WM's were in a position to make this stuff happen which is a big improvement over the AML/AMRs tested yesterday :) 

Edited by optimusprimal82

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quality analysis, OP. I've been reading your posts with great interest the last couple of days. I wish SI would look into this whole width issue; I think it's fundamental to why the ME can be such a frustrating experience.

A couple of days ago I made a post in the GD-beta thread saying, amongst oter things, 

Quote

"Fullback's Defensive Positioning is truly awful. The narrowness with which they often defend - even if you have Defensive Width to wide - is just egregiously wrong"

I think this narrowness of Fullback positioning (no matter the settings), in addition to the narrowness of Wingers, causes the middle of the park to be like a rugby scrum. And this faulty FB positioning is mostly hidden in the ME because the Wingers rarely exploit the chasm of space outside (as you show, they don't stay wide enough, and they don't cross early/smart enough).

This FB/AML-R positioning causes many knock-on issues, including:

  1. The strikers can't find any space in the middle because the Fullbacks are so narrow. 
  2. The middle has less space than a phone booth, resulting in way too many shots getting blocked (particularly from central midfielders).

 

I think two things need to happen, to start to change the ME experience for the better.:

  1. Wingers and Wide Midfielders need to stay much, much wider, as you outline.
  2. Fullbacks need to stop holding hands with Centrebacks.

If this was changed I think not only would we get better wide play, we'd also get better central shooting, and more possibility for Strikers to exploit space in the middle.

Incidentally I don,t know for sure which is to blame, the chicken (narrow wingers) or the egg (narrow fullbacks), but I have found myself swearing in frustration when wingers do exploit space because the fullbacks aren't even looking at them. It's that that makes me think Fullbacks are not narrow because of Wingers, but because they're just coded poorly.

 

Question for you: out of curiousity have you observed/tested how Wingers play when they have the "Hugs Touchline" PPM?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

23 minutes ago, JohnShaft said:

Question for you: out of curiousity have you observed/tested how Wingers play when they have the "Hugs Touchline" PPM?

Thank you! :) Your reply deserves far more than just that throw away smattering of appreciation, however I'm rushing to get a last test in before the United - Liverpool game comes on so forgive me, just this last bit really caught my eye;

I haven't and i don't have any players atm who have that trait. Curious now if there's any realtime editors that exist that can add traits - might pay the toll and grab the official one and try it if so?

One thing I have been doing throughout is keeping the 'stay wider' PI on, but all through testing i've noticed that - despite using multiple different tactic sets/styles - that my MC's have an infuriating tendency to spread the play wide, but hit it straight out of play! I mentioned it in the beta thread yesterday but no-one mentioned they were seeing similar - am 72 mins in my current test game (I keep replaying the same few matches so opposition/tactics/formation are the same) and this is horrifying;

 image.thumb.png.8aec9a94b2777670430c8aeb6988ab8d.png

Sadly it's a trend throughout my testing. One of the sets i'm using has been my main set whilst playing normally (just with 'stay wider' activated on the MR/ML) and it's doing it too, yet i've never noticed it really until now. I'm curious if it's the 'stay wider' PI's that's causing this to happen, and would the 'hug touchline' prove more/less effective etc.

EDIT: and it only got worse in the last 20 minutes;

image.thumb.png.08c891d4246f4dee886aea09865a0ed4.png

Also of interest are the crossing numbers - apparently we had 25 overall, 2 completed, 1 out of play and 22 intercepted. The graphic doesn't show the blocked cross in my earlier FB example however so not sure it's accurately counting/reporting crosses that are blocked... 25 from a team told not to cross still sounds bizarrely high to me too.

image.thumb.png.562f1b4251b0733abca348219a74b750.png

Have got the editor and have indeed added 'hugs touchline' to the MR/ML. Won't have time to test both those and the AML/AMR i don't think (will need to rejig tactics for AM's), but this should give us a glimmer at least!

Edited by optimusprimal82

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@JohnShaft It's only one test, but you may have just hit on a magic button, or at least nudged me back from down a rabbit tunnel...! :D 

 I've played this same 'Blackburn vs FC United' game now 14 times and won 12 of them 1-0, one of them 2-1 and drew the other 1-1. Using exactly the same tactics as the last examples posted today (more importantly, so are Blackburn), changing only the MR/ML so that they no long 'stay wider' and editing them so they both now have the trait 'Hugs Line', it's HT and we're;

image.png.0adc451baad195d5091b2a01eb3f7718.png

Our possession, passing and shooting stats are largely the same, but what isn't is the combination play down the wings - holy heck they've come to life and even better, the FB overlap suddenly seems to be working properly and the team has some proper penetration. Still far too many crosses - we've tried 24 in this one half alone (again, not sure if that counts blocked crosses)! Looking at my notes I do feel a moment of stupid appearing and see a gap - am wondering if i ever tested this same tactic+settings without the stay wider enabled? I've tested so many variants i was bound to miss something i guess! :D One immediate advantage of the trait over the PI though is that with the trait they're far less rigid and will deviate a lot more, tucking when needed and such. Early days and lots more testing to do but very promising difference/performance so far;

image.thumb.png.861686cab7720688409cf61301bdbaef.png

NB: Hadn't realised these stats had crossing figures in them - seems the analysis figures don't count blocked crosses! If the analysis figures think we've done 24 then that must mean 14 of them were blocked which is nuts when all four wide players are told to cross less often - 38 in one half?

Also of interest is this - seems much better. Not perfect, but improved;

image.thumb.png.a6c2dc11d48aea9992a37a1730b64892.png

EDIT: Seems prudent to mention that 2 of the 4 goals were long shots too, which takes the sheen off a little!

Full Time;

image.png.706dc60b0e6589112ef19295424b9dd9.png

image.thumb.png.7b70aca72f0d08377e6892df217edba5.png 64 crosses. Ouch

Seems churlish to complain having finished with 68% possession but this doesn't appear to be fixed sadly;

image.thumb.png.c35c9f55bb4b73d62e213bb1c878e769.png

Edited by optimusprimal82

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those crossing numbers are, to put it bluntly, preposterous - but unfortunately not out of line with what I'm seeing in my own beta games. There are two basic issues before we even start discussing the issue of player movement off the ball, as I see it:

1. Players overprioritize space out wide, both when selecting passing targets and when dribbling. IFs and IWs who receive the ball with space to dribble are more likely to cut towards the byline like a traditional winger than go inside - and this goes even for players like Robben who might as well have a peg for their non-dominant leg. Additionally, players are far too willing to attempt a cross with their weak foot, even when said weak foot is terrible, or they outright have the "avoids weaker foot" PPM.

2. Players completely lose the plot once they're out wide and have the ball. It seems borderline irrelevant what team settings are, whether they have players in support, and perhaps most egregiously, whether there are even any teammates in the box. If they have the ball wide, 9/10 times they're going to attempt to cross it - and right now the frequency of blocked crosses is arguably too high to boot. Players routinely cut back upfield from wide positions in real life, but in the current beta ME this simply does not ever happen. Once they have it out wide, they're going to go towards the byline, they're going to cross whether it's on their weak foot or not, and more often than not it's going to hit the first defender.

Combine these two issues with the wonky off-the-ball movement described by OP in this thread and you've got a recipe for 30+ crosses per half despite being told to cross less.

Edited by Sampsiceramos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Decided to run a few more tests with slight tweaks/variations following that freak result - sadly, although some of the combination play is definitely better without 'stay wider', that one performance seems to have been as a result of getting the two long range goals and perhaps the AI team opening up a little more;

#1 same tactics; no 'stay wider' on ML/MR, no 'hugs touchline' trait;

image.png.bd2b9772b4abd7d83a977ead8c97d36c.png

image.thumb.png.40b77254a9162b97a92b4dccee1928ce.png

Crazy number of crosses again - stress that WM's/FB's are told 'cross less often'.

 

#2 same tactics; left 'stay wider' on ML/MR, added 'hugs touchline' trait (overkill but why not?);

image.thumb.png.5cd91705d79e7c82711d8215932a14fa.png

image.thumb.png.952d54fba0e47fb31417175cfe4d82c4.png

Interestingly, far fewer crosses AND long shots...

 

#3 same tactics, no 'stay wider', added 'hugs touchline', removed 'gets further forward' PI from 2 WM's

image.thumb.png.0401aee6acb947253fd8a26822f42334.png

image.thumb.png.1ce747226b970099befb43ac569e1fb7.png

STC fell to pieces after penalty reason for some reason - normally superhuman. High crosses/long shots again. Blackburn 

 

#4 same tactics, no 'stay wider', added 'hugs touchline'

image.thumb.png.4e22904c6f7a18b69d77a06309d9752c.png

image.thumb.png.593bbab663898452a4a2132bf8bd2a21.png

Think the 4-0 may have been a fluke/result of the long range shots going in, hug touchline seems to work ok, and i'd say possibly/probably better than 'stay wider'. Overall i've got the WM's playing much better than at any previous point with some decent overlapping, but it's still largely inconsistent.

NB: Performances are worse overall in these quick tests as i'm just letting them play without watching the match after the opening 20 minutes. Also not adjusting any tactics as i normally would etc.

Another example of poor crossing logic I've seen happen quite a lot but have forgotten to include until now - when playing a lone STC and he breaks/has possession wide;

Opposition are attacking and pushed up, we win the ball back and DM plays direct pass forward to lone STC;

image.thumb.png.31101e194e337832a04982bd67a2c304.png

 

STC bears down on goal - a little wide, with no support even close and 6 defenders closing fast;

image.thumb.png.80da9666586bafafe9150113952247d1.png

 

STC has good pace and dribbling so gets into the box, angle is slightly against him but he shapes to...

image.thumb.png.87a3e8b1f0a07c8537cc6ba3ff8fdafe.png

 

Cross... :(

image.thumb.png.277d8de36cdbed5d57624a026a524deb.png

Sadly no option on STC's to say cross less, or even don't cross if no-one is within 100m of you!

Other observations;

Wrote yesterday that tackling seems too effective. Success percentages are certainly higher than IRL, but what concerns more about tackling is how many players get 100% despite high number of tackles - seems teams'overall success is high but ok-ish, but it's only brought down to more reasonable levels by poorer success rate of certain (usually more attacking) players;

image.thumb.png.f35fb3751369ca3f3627f5dddcf3c078.png

image.thumb.png.cc6c6d74666b4093586cf0e68fdae48a.png

 

Crosses and long shots are bizarrely high despite instructions. Wide players struggle particularly resisting crossing.

By 'gaming' mentalities and duties you can definitely improve wide player performance, but due to PI's/underlying instructions it's difficult with the majority of wide roles (in particular AMR/AML's), and even with the WM's - which seem to be the stars here - the propensity to cross limits their effectiveness considerably.

 

Going to park testing there for now, at least in terms of wide players etc as I don't think I'm really adding anything now, just proving original observations etc. Happy to discuss in more detail if you need guys, or feel free to point out if i've missed anything obvious etc.

Edited by optimusprimal82

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the stats speak for themselves. I know FM counts crosses in a somewhat different manner than IRL, which does lead to generally higher crossing numbers than IRL, but even accounting for corners, cutbacks (of which based on observation there are vanishingly few, I might add), 45 and 49 are too many, and 69 and 74 attempted crosses are flat-out outrageous for a team that doesn't have "pump ball into box", "hit early crosses" and passing length turned up to 11, never mind a team with wide players specifically instructed to cross less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Sampsiceramos said:

I think the stats speak for themselves. I know FM counts crosses in a somewhat different manner than IRL, which does lead to generally higher crossing numbers than IRL, but even accounting for corners, cutbacks (of which based on observation there are vanishingly few, I might add), 45 and 49 are too many, and 69 and 74 attempted crosses are flat-out outrageous for a team that doesn't have "pump ball into box", "hit early crosses" and passing length turned up to 11, never mind a team with wide players specifically instructed to cross less.

Funny you mention cutbacks; it is one of the most common ways top level teams score past me, presumably as a result of my often high D-line and them hitting me on the counter. Countering is equally the only time I tend to see my guys score them too; despite being set to low crosses (& few crosses!) my guys will consistently cross aerially - maybe they know better than me - but means i rarely see cutbacks in open, non-counter play.

Edited by optimusprimal82

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, optimusprimal82 said:

Funny you mention cutbacks; it is one of the most common ways top level teams score past me, presumably as a result of my often high D-line and them hitting me on the counter. Countering is equally the only time I tend to see my guys score them too; despite being set to low crosses (& few crosses!) my guys will consistently cross aerially - maybe they know better than me - but means i rarely see cutbacks in open, non-counter play.

Aye, spot on with only seeing cutbacks on counters, now that you mention it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Sampsiceramos said:

I think the stats speak for themselves. I know FM counts crosses in a somewhat different manner than IRL, which does lead to generally higher crossing numbers than IRL, but even accounting for corners, cutbacks (of which based on observation there are vanishingly few, I might add), 45 and 49 are too many, and 69 and 74 attempted crosses are flat-out outrageous for a team that doesn't have "pump ball into box", "hit early crosses" and passing length turned up to 11, never mind a team with wide players specifically instructed to cross less.

I wonder how hard is to code non-crossing desire everytime player gets the ball in wide area? This issue has been major problem for years now and it only got worse with fm19. Just by changing desire to cross and pass the ball back, many of attacking issues wouldn't be as apparent. Its really strange nothing has been done here. Not even tried. How many attacks get wasted like that? I've seen games when one team had 100+ crosses, that's 4× more than real life.

Edited by Mitja

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, chad2192 said:

Did the winter update help fix any of this?

I've yet to play it myself, moved on to other things for now, but jury is out so far; few people saying it's better, more people saying it isn't (from my own circle - obviously can't speak for the FM fan-base) - the overriding message i'm hearing is it's largely the same as the beta though, but that's hearsay so apply salt etc until you experience yourself.

Problem is, a lot of the issues described above - whilst prevalent in most games - are exacerbated usually in the most extreme (against defensive sides ) situations; unless people are specifically playing on full match in the other games they'll largely not see them as there's enough space to navigate around the issues rather than directly solve them.

Sweeping statement; A lot (and obviously i don't mean a lot - just a lot of the comments i've read so likely very few of the overall player base) of the people saying they don't see as many issues are/are likely to be playing away from the top level teams where the issues are most apparent. Look at the Premier League top 6 results against the bottom teams and even the AI managers are struggling to get a result in games they should steamroller over. To be honest, i tend to spend most of my time playing in the lower leagues, were it not for coincidental timing with my save, that would have been the case for me too and i'd likely not have noticed/cared as teams continually underestimated me as we charged through the divisions!

Point seems moot now in any case, think we have what we've got now until FM20 if the word on the street is to be believed so time to put up or shut up I guess?

Edited by optimusprimal82

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, chad2192 said:

Did the winter update help fix any of this?

It has gotten somewhat better, from the games I've played. Basically, the completely idiotic "ME WIDE TINY BRAIN ONLY ALLOW CROSS BALL" behaviour has been curbed somewhat, which was what infuriated me the most on beta, and the quality of crosses seems somewhat higher, among other things because players cross from better positions.

That said, I still see 45-55 crosses per game with a strategy intended not to cross a whole lot. Even accounting for the differing methods of tallying it's still 2-3x what I feel like I should be seeing, but I honestly feel like it's a pure and simple result of the completely broken central play and off-the-ball movement in the final third, which we probably won't see fixed before 2020. We're seeing 50+ crosses against parked busses in this ME because the current iteration of the ME simply doesn't allow for any other way of consistently creating chances against deep-sitting teams.

The ME is probably pretty good at this point if you mostly play low-reputation sides, but I still think it's fundamentally unenjoyable to play as a high-ranked team in FM19.

Edited by Sampsiceramos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
40 minutes ago, Sampsiceramos said:

The ME is probably pretty good at this point if you mostly play low-reputation sides, but I still think it's fundamentally unenjoyable to play as a high-ranked team in FM19.

Bodes well for the academy save I've been planning! :) 

The rest falls into that realism vs fun grey area I think...? Some will disagree, but for me - and i don't think this is true of every game (something like 'This war of mine' was very good but never 'fun'!) - fun should win out here...? Then I'd rather finish 2nd in the league playing Ole's way than winning the league with Mourinho's attrition etc - I watch football to be entertained, not win trophies, they're just the lovely lovely icing on top of the cake (and if you can have both, wonderful!), and that correlates to playing FM.

Edited by optimusprimal82

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys, great work on getting the patch pushed out - hope you get to enjoy that all too fleeting feeling of relief before the cold, hard realisation that the next dev cycle starts pretty much straight away hits hard! :) 

Spent a fair bit longer testing in 19.3 now and whilst there may be a subtle improvement in overall play when compared to the final beta (have to factor in here recency bias of course), a lot of the issues discussed/highlighted above do still seem to be prevalent, particularly the behaviour of the AML/AMR's.

I realised getting them reworked in a full patch (with all the component parts/db changes) was never likely to happen, given the scale of change it may take I also realise we may have to roll this forward into next years full release to see any major improvement - all that being said;

  • Is it worth me/us/people still providing examples of this? What I mean is that I know that any examples/suggestions of how to improve the game are/can be useful, but I feel like the information provided is already pretty detailed and anything further is simply repeating it, especially as the AMR/AML behaviour is so easy to demonstrate in most games?
  • Are there any plans/is there any license/agency/scope for you to continue making changes to the ME for 19 or are efforts now being focused on next years game? I realise you can't properly disclose internal strategy, but whilst I'm obviously happy to spend time helping make the game as good as it can be, I'm sure you can appreciate providing further evidence/pkm's is time consuming and if (any of) this is being left to be rolled pulled into next years release as part of the attacking upgrade mentioned previously it seems relatively futile to keep plugging away and the effort better spent on a testing the new stuff when it's ready later down the line?
  • If this is deemed to be too big of an issue/change to be look at for a point release, is there any feasibility/possibility of at least removing the fixed PI's from the AML/AMR/STC's so that we may try and overcome what seems to be a slight bias towards defensive play? Obviously it's early days but the perception seems to be that goals scored in general are down in the beta/19.3, I realise that unlocking these may well cause a knock-on/imbalance, but it could at least add some of the free-scoring fun back into the game that feels absent at present? Could that be done as part of a beta (if any more are planned) to see if it helps address - or at least let the user address - some of the observed issues?
  • I believe this has been raised as a feature request before but if not I'll happily go and raise it now - is it possible within major releases that we can select which of the match engines we want to play with? Realise that's a very user question asked from a point of complete ignorance as any number of variables could be preventing that, but ask 100 people which is their favourite ME from 19 and you'll likely get a wide spread of opinions (fwiw, someone did ask on one of the FM Discord channels I frequent and the original 19 beta engine - which I sadly never got to try - was the most popular surprisingly, with the 19.3 beta being least; hardly the most reliable source/largest sample of information/analysis but interesting nonetheless)

Thanks all, hope you take this in the positive manner it's intended - keep up the otherwise excellent work! :kriss:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...